Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings under Article 142 – Appeal Allowed – The appellant was charged with multiple offences, including under Sections 376 and 377 IPC, based on a complaint by his wife. However, during trial, the complainant retracted her statements, indicating she filed the complaint under family pressure. Held: Considering the retraction and the desire of the complainant to restore family harmony, the Court invoked Article 142 to quash the FIR and all proceedings arising from it – The appellant is thus set free, and his bail bond is discharged [Paras 8-12].

Evidentiary Value of Complainant's Retraction – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – Although the complainant initially reiterated her accusations in statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, she later testified in court that the complaint was filed due to familial influence, and she no longer wished to pursue it. The Court considered this retraction sufficient to warrant the quashing of proceedings, as further prosecution would serve no purpose and would disrupt family peace. The Court noted that the complainant’s deposition aligned with the appellant’s contention of innocence [Para 4].

Power of Supreme Court under Article 142 – Equitable Relief Granted in Quashing FIR – The Court exercised its extraordinary power under Article 142 to grant complete justice, quashing the FIR and proceedings to avoid unnecessary harassment of the appellant. This decision respects the complainant’s wishes and promotes family reconciliation. The interim bail granted to the appellant was confirmed, and he was discharged from his bail bond obligations [Paras 10-12].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings. The interim bail granted to the appellant was made permanent, and he is released and discharged from his bail bond.

Constitutional Law – Disability Rights – Admission to Medical Course – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 -  appellant, diagnosed with a speech and language disability of 44%, was denied admission to the MBBS course under the PwD category due to National Medical Commission guidelines disqualifying candidates with a disability exceeding 40% – Held: The strict application of the 40% disability rule was deemed overly broad and discriminatory under Article 14, as it failed to consider individual circumstances – The Court directed the National Medical Commission to reformulate its guidelines, emphasizing reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act [Paras 18-22, 30-35].

Reasonable Accommodation – Interpretation of Disability Regulations - Court held that mere quantification of disability at 40% or more does not automatically disqualify a candidate for admission – Disability Assessment Boards are required to assess whether the disability actually impedes the candidate's ability to pursue the course, rather than relying on blanket exclusions – The decision reinforced the need for reasonable accommodation to enable the full participation of persons with disabilities in higher education [Paras 38-40].

Directive Principles of State Policy – Right to Education – Persons with Disabilities - Article 41 of the Constitution emphasizes the State's duty to provide access to education for persons with disabilities – The Court ruled that regulations that impose blanket exclusions based on arbitrary thresholds are incompatible with this Constitutional mandate, affirming the right of persons with disabilities to be assessed individually [Paras 44-48].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The admission of the appellant to the MBBS course was confirmed, and the National Medical Commission was directed to revise its regulations in line with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, by the next academic year [Paras 50-54].

Medical Negligence – Enhancement of Compensation – National Commission's Order Upheld – The LRs of the deceased patient sought enhanced compensation for medical negligence after the patient died following a nasal polypectomy procedure. The National Commission had awarded ₹3,00,000/- against the treating doctors, along with ₹50,000/- each from two doctors for giving contradictory CT scan reports, and ₹1,20,000/- refund for treatment costs. Held: The compensation awarded was found reasonable, and the plea for enhancement was dismissed. The court emphasized that the value of life cannot be quantified in monetary terms, and the award serves as solace rather than exact compensation. [Paras 9-16]

Medical Negligence – Contesting Doctors’ Challenge to Liability – Doctors filed SLPs challenging the compensation, arguing that they provided appropriate care. Held: Notice was not issued in the doctors’ petitions, and the court found no merit in their contentions, dismissing the petitions. [Paras 12, 18]

Decision: SLPs Dismissed – The petitions filed by the LRs of the deceased patient seeking enhanced compensation were dismissed, as were the petitions filed by the doctors challenging the compensation awarded. The National Commission’s order was upheld in its entirety. [Paras 17-18]

Defamation – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The appellant sought quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for defamation after making statements against respondent No. 2, calling him a "sexual predator" – Supreme Court held: The appellant, realizing his mistake, tendered an unconditional apology and agreed to publish the same in a leading newspaper and compensate the respondent with a token amount – Criminal proceedings quashed in the interest of both parties [Paras 1-4].

Unconditional Apology and Compensation – Resolution of Dispute – The Court accepted the appellant's offer of an unconditional apology to the respondent, to be published in "Daily Eenadu" and ordered a token compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the mental agony caused by the defamatory allegations – Proceedings in CC No. 196 of 2019 and the related suit were quashed [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings in CC No. 196 of 2019 and Original Suit No. 1490/2018 pending before the courts in Telangana were quashed – Appellant to tender an unconditional apology and pay compensation to respondent No. 2 [Paras 9-11].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Prima Facie Case for Investigation - High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406 and 420 IPC on the grounds that the FIR did not disclose entrustment or dishonest intention from the outset – The appellant contended that the accused failed to pay rent despite false assurances and retained possession of the truck – Held: The High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold without considering the police investigation and charge-sheet, as it prematurely thwarted a legitimate investigation – Appeal allowed, High Court’s decision set aside, matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 9-12, 18-19].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Misappropriation of Vehicle – Entrustment and Retention - The allegation of non-payment of rent, coupled with failure to return the vehicle, may suggest dishonest retention or disposal, which could constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC – High Court ought to have allowed investigation into these claims before deciding on quashing the FIR [Paras 13-16].

Cheating – Dishonest Intention – False Assurances and Retention of Possession

Though one month’s rent was paid, the subsequent non-payment of rent and false assurances, while retaining possession of the truck, raised a prima facie case of dishonest intention, warranting investigation under Section 420 IPC [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The order of the High Court quashing the FIR and related proceedings is set aside – Case remanded for fresh adjudication after considering materials collected during the investigation – Costs made easy [Para 19].

Civil Law – Partition and Execution – Limitation – The appellants, legal representatives of the original plaintiff, filed an Execution Petition for possession after the final decree in a partition suit was passed in 1970 and engrossed on stamp paper in 1990 – The respondents, legal heirs of a pendente lite transferee, challenged the petition as time-barred under Article 136 of the Limitation Act – High Court held the limitation period begins from the date of the decree, not its engrossment – The Execution Petition was time-barred, and the remand for fresh consideration by the trial court was upheld – Held: Appeal dismissed [Paras 9, 17, 24-26].

Pendente Lite Transferee – Right to Resist Execution – The respondents, as heirs of a pendente lite transferee, sought to defend their rights under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC – Appellants argued the transferee had no locus standi – Court held that a third party, even a pendente lite transferee, dispossessed under a decree, can apply for redelivery under Rule 99 and defend their independent title and interest – The term “stranger” under Rule 99 includes pendente lite transferees who were not impleaded in the suit [Paras 13-15].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Impleadment of Transferee – The respondents’ predecessor acquired the property before the final decree – The Court reaffirmed the principle that lis pendens does not render transfers void ab initio, but subservient to the rights of the original parties – Transferees have the right to be impleaded and defend their interests if not joined in the original suit [Para 15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – The matter remanded for fresh adjudication, including the respondents' independent title claim – Costs made easy [Para 20].
 

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Law – CIRP Deferral – Jurisdiction Under Article 226 – The appellant challenged the High Court’s order deferring the CIRP of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited after denying the respondents’ request for consolidation of CIRP with two other entities – Held: The High Court erred in deferring the CIRP despite refusing consolidation – The High Court’s direction to defer the CIRP under Article 226 is unwarranted as it breaches the discipline of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – CIRP deferral quashed [Paras 6-11].

Consolidation of CIRP – High Court Declined Relief – The respondents had sought consolidation of the CIRP of three corporate entities before the NCLT, which was rejected – The High Court also declined the same relief but, paradoxically, deferred the CIRP process – Held: The High Court had no basis to issue the deferral order after rejecting the primary relief, and such a direction is beyond the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226 [Para 10].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The impugned order of the High Court directing the deferment of the CIRP is set aside – The CIRP shall continue as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [Paras 11-12].

Specific Performance – Bona Fide Purchaser – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – The appellant claimed to be a bona fide purchaser without notice of an earlier agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. However, the sale deed in favor of the appellant was executed during the pendency of the suit, thus attracting the doctrine of lis pendens – Held: The sale during the pendency of the suit is void against the plaintiff, and the appellant cannot claim protection as a bona fide purchaser under the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court was justified in decreeing specific performance of the sale agreement in favor of the plaintiff [Paras 5, 10, 15].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – The sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendant No. 2 on 08.01.1993 during the pendency of the suit was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens – High Court ruled that defendant No. 2 could not claim to be a bona fide purchaser since the sale was conducted during the pendency of the litigation – Held: The principle of lis pendens binds the purchaser to the outcome of the litigation regardless of notice or good faith – Plaintiff entitled to specific performance [Paras 12-15].

Fraud Allegations – Cross-Objections – The First Appellate Court’s finding that the agreement was collusive between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 was not supported by any cross-objections or appeals by the defendants – The Trial Court had rejected the fraud allegation – Held: In the absence of cross-objections, the First Appellate Court could not revisit the fraud issue, as the defendants had accepted the Trial Court's findings on this matter [Paras 10-11].

Plaintiff’s Readiness and Willingness – Grant of Specific Performance – High Court found that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – The plaintiff had marked his presence with the Sub-Registrar on the date agreed for the execution of the sale deed – Held: Plaintiff’s conduct demonstrated his bona fide intent, warranting specific performance despite the alternative relief granted by the lower courts [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decree for specific performance affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Suspension of Sentence – Section 302 IPC – Bail Granted to Co-Accused – The appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for their involvement in the death of Babu Lal – The appellants argued that no overt act was attributed to them, and they only held the victim down while another co-accused delivered the fatal blow – Held: Considering the role of the appellants and distinguishing it from the main accused, as well as the fact that they are women with young children, the Court granted suspension of sentence and bail to the appellants, subject to conditions to be imposed by the Sessions Court.

Distinguishable Role of Co-Accused – Women Accused Granted Bail – The appellants, who are two women, were convicted along with others for murder – Since no direct act of violence was attributed to them and their role was limited to holding the victim, the Court found it appropriate to grant them bail, especially in light of their familial responsibilities, including one appellant who had given birth while previously incarcerated .

Decision:

Leave granted – Appeal allowed – The appellants are granted suspension of sentence and bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Sessions Court – They are required to appear before the court when directed by the High Court during the pending appeal.